40 ms·

A Watch Guy's Thoughts on the Apple Watch After Seeing It in the Metal

• seanflyon 12y ago
  Interesting that he assumes all the strap options are available at the "starting price" of $350.
  • 2close4comfort 12y ago
    Now in his defense he's a watch guy not an Apple guy. He is just now aware of how the world works.
  • xienze 12y ago
    Yep. First thing I thought of when seeing all those different straps. I have a feeling the elastomer bracelets will come in at $50 and the metal/leather ones will be $100.
  • knodi123 12y ago
    To a guy who own an hourglass that cost more than my prius, I suspect that all of the options for the apple watch are so negligibly priced as to be "free".
    • seanflyon 12y ago
      He specifically states that the straps are unusually high quality for the $350 price point.
• smaili 12y ago
  Call me cynical but how do we know that Apple didn't secretly just pay him to write this review?
  • sanoli 12y ago
    Right, they paid the guy to write about how Apple's new product has no emotion. I wonder how much you have to pay for that?
  • tgcordell 12y ago
    They invited him to the Keynote. They wanted him to be there. It's his profession to write reviews on the watch industry. All signs point to this being a mutual agreement, but of course, we question whether money was exchanged? We can ask that question of any and all reviews for products, no matter the company or the author. I guess what I'm driving at is... Why are you cynical about this particular article?
  • cheald 12y ago
    Call me cynical, but how do I know that Samsung didn't secretly just pay you to cast doubt on positive articles about the watch?
    • bgroins 12y ago
      Cynical!
    • MCRed 12y ago
      Well, there is evidence of Samsung astroturfing blog authors. One fellow I followed had a rather obscure blog, and then one day he talked about samsung and suddenly had hundreds of negative comments (and not of the american pro-android kind you see here.) So, he checked his logs and found they were coming from a limited IP range in Korea. Anecdote, of course. But I think assuming that someone who posts a blog posting in a blog about watches with a history of writing about watches is probably not so easily bought.
      • cheald 12y ago
        > But I think assuming that someone who posts a blog posting in a blog about watches with a history of writing about watches is probably not so easily bought. That was, in a roundabout way, my point; it seems silly to cry "omg, Apple shill!" with no evidence beyond "he said something nice about the iWatch" (and it is equally as silly for me to cry "omg, Samsung shill!" on nothing but the basis of "he said something unkind about Apple"). I'm afraid absurd tone doesn't come through well on the internet. This is precisely the kind of article I'd expect from a watch aficionado. One can look at it with a suspicious eye, but unless there's something to indicate that they were bought, it's silly to call them out as such.
• julianpye 12y ago
  We here on HN are mostly looking at Apple Watch as Android Wear vs. Apple Watch. This article is interesting since it shows that Apple is successful at completely ignoring these competitors and promoting Watch in a totally different market and environment, where all that matters is Brand, Design and Build. No matter if Android Wear is as good or even better, none of their manufacturers can compete in the luxury space as well as Apple may be able to.
  • lelandbatey 12y ago
    I agree. This is way less about anything technical and much more about fashion (a thing Apple is quite good at). I'm reminded of this article that was posted on HN not too long ago[0]. Also, based purely on style, the Apple watch looks quite luxurious, and the pictures really do make it seem "expensive". However, I also find other smart watches quite nice, such as the Moto360.
    • lelandbatey 12y ago
      I forgot to actually link to the item: [0] - http://www.subtraction.com/2014/07/09/looks-by-dr-dre/ http://www.subtraction.com/2014/07/09/looks-by-dr-dre/
  • adnrw 12y ago
    I think this is a key point that's further backed up by Apple's recent hiring of people from the high-end fashion space. It certainly seems to me that Apple aren't even trying to directly compete for the audience that Android Wear attracts. Ben Thompson[1] has been talking for months about Apple moving properly into the luxury goods sector. The Watch seems like their first real push in that direction. [1]: http://stratechery.com http://stratechery.com
    • eitally 12y ago
      I agree. Hiring Angela Ahrendts away from Burberry was a strong sign!
  • scep12 12y ago
• pavlov 12y ago
  Nice article. I'm wondering about this bit: On an emotional level, you can't compare [Apple Watch and mechanical watches], and that is why I don't believe many serious watch lovers (who, again, would normally be racing to spend their cash on an Apple release) will go for this. I suspect that the "serious watch lover" market is one that doesn't really figure in Apple's market estimates at all. On the contrary, Apple has traditionally tried to go contrary to the expectations of the archetypal "serious lover of X" user when entering the market of X. The Macintosh was not for "serious microcomputer lovers". The iPod was not for "serious MP3 lovers". The iPhone was not for "serious smartphone lovers". (Those did exist back in early 2007 -- they were the rare people who actually knew how to install stuff on their geeked-out Nokia N95 devices, or were in love with the BlackBerry keyboard. They hated the iPhone almost unanimously.) Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions. I hate OS X notifications; I hate it when the phone rings; I hate reading Twitter (but it's an addiction that's sometimes hard to overcome). I certainly don't want a blob on my wrist endlessly buzzing and tapping away, trying to figure out my heart rate and mood and generally being a bothersome noisy little electronic snoop. But at the same time, I can imagine that the younger crowd wants exactly that. I think the Apple Watch will be a hit, but maybe about 1 year after the launch once the price of the low-end model comes down and a few millimetres get trimmed off.
  • TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    The problem is there's no ecosystem and no added value. The iPhone and iPad had apps, the iPod had podcasting and iTunes. WATCH has nothing equivalent. It seems to be a drastically cut-down iPhone you wear on your wrist, with a few haptic doodads added to create a USP. It's aiming for a weird market that Apple has traditionally done well in - emotional spending and evangelism - but it's trying to cultivate desire by attempting to be explicitly fashionable, instead of offering 'magical' user benefits that lead indirectly to the perception of being fashionable. ('Show, don't tell.') Obvious conclusion is that it's not a Jobsian coup like the last few revolutions were. Maybe it could be with more thought about where it fits as a product, and what makes it unique. But currently 'small iOS wrist device for semi-fashionable people' seems like a challenging place to succeed in.
• MCRed 12y ago
  Apple is historically the kind of company that says "you can have it in any color you like, so long as it's black" for new products... and then when the product has been around for awhile, they start accessorizing it. The iPhone is a good example: it wasn't until last year that you could have more than 2 versions (black and white)... and the 5c added many possible combinations with the off color cases. That's a product that had been on the market 6 years at that point! So, actually offering all these different variations is quite a departure for them. One argument for the Beats acquisition I heard was that Beats did this as well- they had many SKUs and many color combinations for each model of headphone and the argument went that managing selling a product line like that took a lot of special skill. I wonder if this is the thing that Apple was really buying with Beats? (or more realistically, a big part of Beats value to Apple.)
  • pinaceae 12y ago
    the iPod Nano is the counterexample, together with the bright colors of the iMac. the Nano is especially important as it was used already by various kickstarter projects as a poor man's Apple Watch. the real one looks very similar actually.
    • MCRed 12y ago
      I think of those as supporting examples. The first iMac had bright colors, but you're right that they both adopted colors rather quicker than my example of the iPhone. I wonder how much of the impetus for the Apple Watch came from the number of people who wanted to use the nano as a watch. Kind of a back door MVP in a way.
    • wlesieutre 12y ago
      The iPod Nano actually launched in black and white, briefly dropping the color options from the earlier HD based iPod mini. That was toward the beginning of Apple's black/white phase. Thru went back to colors pretty quickly, probably for a mix of fashion and scratch resistance. There was a class action about the plastic nanos getting damaged too easily.
• grecy 12y ago
  Great article and photos. Imagine a man who grew up in the middle class, went do a decent school, got an okay job, lives in a nice apartment in some metropolitan town, maybe drives a German car and occasionally splurges on something nice for himself. Do you see him wearing the Apple Watch? I don't. I honestly don't think Apple are too concerned about not selling a watch to that man. The watch is targeted at the hundreds of millions of teens and 20 year olds that are already attached to their iPhone, and want another gadget to connect to it and play with. Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.
  • tolmasky 12y ago
    > Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves. You mean the declining year-over-year iPad sales figures? The tablet market is far from proven. Maybe the last year has been a hiccup, or maybe tablets weren't all they were cracked up to be.
    • mendort 12y ago
      To be fair to Apple, I think it's fair to say that their ROI on the iPad has been respectable, even if it doesn't turn out to be a product that's successful in the long term.
    • MCRed 12y ago
      He's arguing that there's a market, you're saying that sales are down for a year. (Which is true after 3 years of explosive growth) For the past three quarters, Apple has sold more than 12 million iPads a quarter, or an annual rate of >48 million units. Is 48 million units a year not proof of a market?
    • soneil 12y ago
      Personally (I'm no market guy) I think this pretty natural. I haven't found a lifecycle for the ipad yet. I go through iphones every 2 generations (I've skipped each S so far), macbook pro every 3-4 years .. I got an ipad2, and haven't found a need to replace it yet. The battery's pretty solid, and at this rate, that's likely to define when it's time for a new one. Most the people I see buying new tablets are essentially buying "my first computer" for a kid. Something to shut them up in the car. And that's not a great market for apple's prices. So I don't think the tablet is a flash in the pan - but I don't think the initial rush was sustainable either. Now that pretty much everyone who wants one, has one, it'll settle down closer to lifecycle turnover. And to stray a little closer to on-topic, I'm hoping for the same from the watch. That's really what I'm waiting to find out, and I suspect we won't know any time soon. But that $350 is going to feel much heavier if I feel compelled to replace it as often as my phone. (on that note, I did find it interesting that there was absolutely nothing in the way of tech specs announced on the phone. No mention of resolution, just that it's enough. No mention of speed, or storage. The models are defined by materials, not numbers. Hopefully, this is a good sign that this device isn't meant to fit into a race to double the numbers each year.)
• capkutay 12y ago
  Apple is a marketing/sales retail machine. This watch is just another thing for them to sell with a high-end, glossy look and feel that fits with their strategy of dominating the sectors they want to control. I'm not surprised it doesn't do all the things HN folks were looking for (e.g. requires pairing with iPhone, not a standalone device with its own internet connectivity/gps). On the other hand, I think they delivered a nice product that will fit perfectly in an Apple store, engaging swarms of shoppers with lots of disposable income.
  • gress 12y ago
    A marketing/sales retail machine, with the best product design and engineering on the planet to supply it.
  • r00fus 12y ago
    > requires pairing with iPhone, not a standalone device with its own internet connectivity/gps Standalone GPS is fine (even preferred - not replacing a forerunner) but another multi-band cell-radio? Simply sounds like a bad idea - the form factor is too small to make that feasible or interesting - for now.
    • vidarh 12y ago
      Aliexpress is overflowing with Android devices with multi-band cell radios. Some of them even dual-SIMs.
  • rtpg 12y ago
    I know people like to feel clever like acting that Apple's success is solely due to marketing/sales as if they've peeked behind the curtain, but their products are actually good too.
• fillskills 12y ago
  "Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For" - Thats what I feel when I hear about any tech company launching a watch, be it Samsung or Apple. Maybe its just me, but since owning a smartphone, I feel I don't really need a watch. None I know wears a watch anymore. Werent watches one of the main things replaced by smartphones. Also, how many more screens can I handle? Laptops for work, tablets for browsing, smartphones for on the go tech.... and a smartwatch to do what exactly? Maybe I am missing the whole point of smart watches. I am hoping its just not me.
  • tvanantwerp 12y ago
    This is my experience going from watch, to smartphone, to smartwatch: The phone replaced my watch because it completed the same task while also completing many more. Why bother with a watch (for me, at least, just another thing to remember) when the phone works just as well? A phone is not a perfect replacement, however. I constantly have to pull it out of my pocket, input a code to unlock it for various tasks, etc. My Android watch has replaced the action of pulling my phone out of my pocket and unlocking it for basic tasks. It tells me the time, lets me dismiss phone calls, can pause and play my music, take notes, remind me of things, and display texts--and I no longer have to fish around in my pocket for a phone that takes seconds to unlock and navigate through. As the smartphone replaced a repetitive task (remembering to wear my watch), the smartwatch replaces another repetitive task (wrestling with a phone stuck in my pocket).
    • enlightenedfool 12y ago
      yeah...people somehow manage to justify buying anything that apple makes. And nothing wrong with that, just interesting observation.
      • icebraining 12y ago
        Apple makes Android watches, now?
    • wpietri 12y ago
      Exactly my experience as well. I got a smartwatch for a project and expected to hate it; I hate most gadgets. But it effectively made my phone more polite.
• debt 12y ago
  In one of the photos I could see a reflection in the Apple Watch of the camera man taking the photo. I can't help but think that that big honking camera will be replaced one day by the very thing he's taking the photo of.
  • jff 12y ago
    Seems unlikely if you know anything at all about optics.
    • grecy 12y ago
      The same would have been said about vacuum tubes...
      • ars 12y ago
        No it wouldn't. There are fundamental laws of optics that require certain sizes in order to get a quality image.
        • gone35 12y ago
          True true, but remember if you are willing to assume sparsity and use reconstruction algorithms, there are by now well-established ways to get around Shannon-Nyquist with high probability (ie the whole compressed sensing stuff). Just sayin'...
    • bing_dai 12y ago
      I believe one day software will be advanced enough to reduce the number of necessary lenses for quality photos.. "Software eating DSLR".
      • krschultz 12y ago
        Is that belief in any way based on physics?
• pimlottc 12y ago
  Another site with an always-present header that completely fails keyboard paging. It is really frustrating how many pages break such a basic function. Forcing the user to manually adjust the positioning every time they page is a really great way to make them lose interest and go somewhere else.
  • asadotzler 12y ago
    You should switch to Firefox. With Firefox, we take those headers into account when keyboard paging and everything "just works."
    • grayclhn 12y ago
      OT, but I use Firefox and have not found that to be universally the case. But on this website, it definitely does and I really appreciate it!
    • sjwright 12y ago
      And I appreciate it. But it would be nice to have some built-in way to nix them. Right now I'm browsing on a MacBook Air 11" which has just 768 pixels of height. Between the menu bar, firefox UI and fixed site header, I'm left with a claustrophobic slit to view the content in. And then I love to browse many websites by zooming in and leaning back; but once you zoom in a few steps these headers magnify to the point of absurdity.
    • pimlottc 12y ago
      That's a good point. But besides my undying love for Chrome Dev Tools, I'm kinda bugged by the idea of hacking a permanent workaround into the browser to accommodate broken sites.
• cpr 12y ago
  Isn't anyone else bothered by the lousy typography of both the logo (<apple>WATCH) and the typography on the screen? The fonts are too loosely spaced, and the screen layouts looked amateurish, no better than the Android-based wearables. I know this sounds like a nit-pick, but it's not. It's not like Apple to blow it at this level. They need to get it right at every level, especially the UI (and the brand).
  • serve_yay 12y ago
    Literally everyone I have seen remarking on the typography has said the exact opposite. And I concur with them, I think the type and the new typeface is one of the best parts.
• zobzu 12y ago
  Personally I dont want any watch with at least 1 week of battery time with heavy use. My current watch has 5 fucking years of battery time. Some are more or less working indefinitely. I like that my watch looks nice, but I also like that its functional. Running, on a bike, what not, its actually much more convenient than grabbing a smartphone. What I don't get, is why current watch makers don't make a smartwatch from their point of view: a regular watch, with connectivity to the phones, that can do a couple of things like vibrate in a variety of ways - OK - citizen actually tried that and it sort of work but there is no attention to details. You want the watch to reliably vibrate if u get a msg or notification that you setup. You want it to vibrate differently for navigation depending if you gotta go right or left according to your phone (so you dont need to grab the phone while on a bike for example!). Neither work well on the citizen, and the connection eventually times out, that sort of stuff. Too bad.
  • grecy 12y ago
    > Personally I dont want any watch with at least 1 week of battery time with heavy use. My current watch has 5 fucking years of battery time. Some are more or less working indefinitely. Fair enough, though the same could be said about smartphones.. i.e. Personally I don't want any cell phone that has less than a week of battery time with heavy use. My current dumb phone has weeks of battery time, even when used heavily. I'll never get a smartphone until battery life is.... While that statement makes sense, it doesn't appear to have stopped many from moving to a smartphone.
  • jvagner 12y ago
    Do you take your watch off at night.. leave it on a bedstand? How much harder with it be to tap the magnetic power thingie on? Not at all. When Apple Watch 2.0 comes out, will battery life be longer? Quite probably. This is just the beginning. If people can get used to charging their phone 1-3x a/day, they can plug their Watch in at night. Not perfect, but I don't think this is a deal breaker.
    • glandium 12y ago
      And when you go on a trip, you have to take one more charger...
• klochner 12y ago
  The hourglass referenced in the article costs $28,000, here's the start of his review about it: Let's begin this post by letting you know, right from the start, that this hourglass costs $28,500. Now, as you continue to read, you will notice how that number becomes more and more rational in your mind. Not quite for me. It's still seeming absurd. http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-by-marc-newson-quite-possibly-the-coole.html http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-...
  • aeturnum 12y ago
    A lot of the high end watch world is focused on craftsmanship. Think of it like buying a painting, but instead of oil & canvas you get steel, gears & springs (or glass and...nanoballs in this case). Anyone can buy a clock - you have one in the corner of your computer right now. People who spend this level of money are more interested in time keeping sculpture.
    • klochner 12y ago
      Both watches and the hourglass seem closer to a lithograph than an original piece of art, and I wouldn't pay $28k for a lithograph.
  • x0x0 12y ago
    If you're incredibly wealthy, what else are you going to spend the money on after all possible material needs are more than satisfied? After all, you can have multiple homes, but you still only stay in one at a time; wear one pair of shirt and pants per day; etc.
    • klochner 12y ago
      Your presumption is that money needs to be spent. Some people try to limit flagrant indulgence in consumerism regardless of income level.
      • x0x0 12y ago
• jasonwilk 12y ago
  Good article. I really agree with his comment: "It's directly competing for the same real estate (i.e wrist), where as if we had seen a bracelet of some kind announced yesterday, those early adapters, myself included, would be begging Apple to take their pre-pre-pre-order" I really did want the apple watch to be more of a bracelet and something that could be complimentary to an analog watch with all the messaging, notification, health aspects in tact. More than anything, the health tracking seems to be the most relevant for myself, and for that, I see a JawBone Up or something comparable that I can rest next to my analog watch as a potentially better option. The design is brilliant, it's just not for me. However, iPhone 6 looks great so not like Apple won't be taking my money :)
• serve_yay 12y ago
  I like this, because it dispenses with the "Apple lover" angle and instead focuses on the existing watch market at the $350 price point. It should be clarified, though, that $350 is the base price and some configurations are probably going to go up to double and triple that.
  • slantyyz 12y ago
    Here's something that's different from the existing watch market and Apple's watch. Most people who pay $350 or more for a watch will wear it for years and years. The Apple Watch, as beautiful as it is -- is still an electronics/computing device that has obsolescence built into its life cycle (I'm also curious if the battery can be replaced). Unlike an analog watch, people will want to upgrade to watches with faster CPUs and other new technology. And if you use mobile phones and tablets as a model, that could translate to every couple of years. While I believe that initial sales will be impressive, it'll be interesting to see how a premium product like this will perform in the long term.
    • serve_yay 12y ago
      Yeah, that is a big difference. Dropping $600-ish on a watch (figure pulled from thin air) is one thing, but usually when people do that, it's gonna be their watch for many years.
    • enlightenedfool 12y ago
      It'll do well, considering how other premium products from apple sell. All those who buy an Apple product every time they release one...big enough market
• josu 12y ago
  If Motorola were able to release iteration 2 of the Moto 360 by the time the Apple Watch comes out, and make it iOS compatible, they could single-handedly kill the Apple Watch.
  • rewind 12y ago
    Regardless of whether or not it's a better watch, unless it has an Apple logo on it somewhere and they hide the Motorola logo, then I doubt very much that that would ever happen.
  • Bud 12y ago
    There's zero evidence so far that Motorola can even last 12 months in this market, and lots of evidence to say they can't, like their abject failure in the cellphone market. Ludicrous to say that their lukewarm Moto 360 effort, featuring a CPU that's 4 years old, terrible performance, cheap look-and-feel, and extremely poor battery life, could even be a serious threat to Apple's engineering efforts.
  • threeseed 12y ago
    How could they make it iOS compatible ? They won't have the ability to integrate with third party applications which is really the killer feature of the device.
• cnbuff410 12y ago
  I'm sure the author is very knowledgeable on the watch industry and by no means I'm challenging his taste and feel of fashion. I'm just curious that when he made claim of "The Apple Watch is by far the best smartwatch", what is this claim based on? Did he try all the other high end smart watch like Moto 360 or G watch R? If not, is it really fair to make a strong public claim like this?
  • to3m 12y ago
    A watch is more jewellery than timekeeping appliance. Appearance and provenance/authenticity seem key. (You can tell this is the case, because people will spend thousands of dollars on wind-up watches that stop telling the time entirely after 2 days or whatever - even though they could instead have bought some cheap digital POS for £5, that will require adjusting about once a year.) And there's not much in the way of provenance for a computer-powered wristwatch from Apple... so the review focuses, and quite rightly I think, on what the watch looks like, and how it feels on the wrist. The timekeeping aspect is purely secondary, since, thanks to modern technology, we know it will keep the time. My phone keeps the time, my laptop keeps the time, my TV keeps the time, my fucking oven keeps the time. Keeping the time is a solved problem.
    • voltagex_ 12y ago
      There are only a couple of options in your list that's synced to a reasonable timekeeping source - keeping accurate time is something we only solved "recently"* *Although, in the US, wasn't there a timekeeping radio broadcast?
      • mosheroperandi 12y ago
        There still is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB I remember having a cheap Timex in the mid 2000s that synced off this. I found it a great improvement to the watch experience; my synchronization source of choice before that was a wall clock also powered off that same signal. I also have vague memories of a phone number you could call to get the accurate time.
• NicoJuicy 12y ago
  I thought Apple would say: the market ain't ready for a smartwatch. Nobody wants to pay for a watch that has to charge every 24 hours (or less). That's immediatly the biggest mistake from the Moto360, the watch looks awesome... But the battery life is too short :(
  • bobbles 12y ago
    I only ever charge my iPhone at night next to my bed, if I just have to put the watch on the charging stand (or whatever) at the same time as my phone I don't think people are going to care too much. They will need enough battery life though to go from morning to the next morning I would say, as you don't exactly want to have your watch stop working after a night of drinks after work...
    • solnyshok 12y ago
      you do not want your watch run out of juice around midnight, at the nightclub, or on the dark road
• drivingmenuts 12y ago
  I know many people who will happily spend $350 on an iWatch who wouldn't even consider a mechanical watch at any price. I think this watch is for them. I also think mechanical watch makers are going to wake up one day and realize their market is getting old and dead.
  • Igglyboo 12y ago
    I myself, and many of my friends, fall into that category. I realize for some that a mechanical watch may be a fashion icon or status symbol but for most, it's utterly useless. It tells time and my phone already does that.
    • gaius 12y ago
      Ironically, when you get your phone out to check it, you're doing exactly the same as people did 100 years ago with pocketwatches, Pocketwatches were replaced by wristwatches the instant it became possible to do so.
• larrys 12y ago
  I liked this: "But for me, it's all about the Milanese bracelet, baby. The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it." Specifically "The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable." Apple knows? Obviously Apple didn't develop the watch in a vacuum. And they have the money and resources to hire and consult with the best people in the world. So the surprise isn't that they did this what's surprising is how other equally rich companies don't tend to do things like this. In other words they seem to be lacking the motivation and creativity to even hire the right individuals.
• zindlerb 12y ago
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
• arh68 12y ago
  Wow, what a crazy review. No mention of materials, which seems odd for a 'watch guy' review. I have to go to apple.com to read: A new aluminum alloy? "that’s 60 percent stronger than standard alloys"?? No mention of the sapphire crystals? Or the strengthened Ion-X glass? As a watch guy, that's what I want to hear about. Is it lighter than titanium, or heavy like a stainless watch? Is the crystal domed? Reflective? What is the ceramic back? I'll be honest, this reads like a crap review. I'm impressed by the sweeping, of course. The display looks very nice for a watch at any price range. I wish the author actually compared some $350 mechanical watches, instead of a $28,000 hourglass, a $15,000 watch too big for his cuff, a $150 mechanical Swatch, and a $700 mechanical Tissot. Instead, we get vague, non-specific swaths of comparisons: > Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss and Asian brands do with similarly priced watches > In many cases, its offerings make what is coming out of Switzerland (or Asia) look amateurish. Again, no specific mention of better-than-X. Too bad. I do like that Tissot he mentioned. I'm quite impressed by Apple's (relatively) vast array of superb finishes: other watch manufacturers could step their game up in this regard, but they would have to consolidate their designs. Also, the bracelets look quite nice and I hope that competition improves things analog-side.
  • coldtea 12y ago
    >Wow, what a crazy review. No mention of materials, which seems odd for a 'watch guy' review. I have to go to apple.com to read: A new aluminum alloy? "that’s 60 percent stronger than standard alloys"?? No mention of the sapphire crystals? Or the strengthened Ion-X glass? As a watch guy, that's what I want to hear about. Is it lighter than titanium, or heavy like a stainless watch? Is the crystal domed? Reflective? What is the ceramic back? I'll be honest, this reads like a crap review. That wouldn't be a watch review I'd want to read, that would be the analogous of what we say in the photography forums "pixel peeping"/"measurebation" review (which, like the reviews you describe in watch circles, all too common).
    • snogglethorpe 12y ago
      Yeah, but I think "watch fans" are quite different than photographers in that respect. Watch fans are generally pretty up-front about the fact that they like watches mainly because they're beautiful/elegant/cool artifacts. As long as a watch keeps OK time, they don't seem particularly concerned with the nominal functionality. I think in reality, many people like cameras for similar reasons, but it's not quite as acceptable to admit that. Even if someone really bought that expensive Leica because it's a beautiful jewel of precision manufacturing and high-quality materials (a perfectly fine reason if you ask me), they often put up something of a front, trying to emphasize all the ways it takes great pictures and helps their photography style...
• dchuk 12y ago
  It's interesting to me that there has been very little mention of the fact that the Apple Watches (at least the watches we've seen so far) are purely for right handed people who wear watches on their left hand. If you tried wearing these on your right hand, you'd be reaching across the face to use the digital crown. There are two logical solutions for this: 1) Sell a left handed model as well. You can expect there to be a 90/10 skew for righties just because of genetics, but that can be accounted for in manufacturing runs. 2) Allow the watch to be flipped upside down for the right wrist. While technically this would work, I highly doubt Apple would design something to be worn upside down. Or they can just say fuck it and only make watches that make sense for right handed people. I guess we'll find out in a few months.
  • refulgentis 12y ago
    We already know – they went with #2. http://www.iclarified.com/43778/apples-iwatch-is-reversible-for-lefthanded-users http://www.iclarified.com/43778/apples-iwatch-is-reversible-...
  • alphakappa 12y ago
    http://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/09/apple-watch-interface-orientation-choice/ http://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/09/apple-watch-interface-or...
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
• Thiz 12y ago
  Apple Watch is not a watch. It's a computer on your wrist that will be used for special tasks where little but precise information is required. It's all about presence, NFC, iBeacon, sensors, iTags, etc.
  • laichzeit0 12y ago
    Yes, let's just completely ignore the aesthetics of the device and focus only on the technology. It's almost as if you didn't read the article and the finer points about the design of the face, straps, etc. that the author went into such painstaking detail about. He didn't even mention _any_ of the things you just talked about, instead deferred it to another article.
• lumens 12y ago
  The smartwatch represents the beginning of a new era: the unbundling of the smartphone. Like Marc Andreessen pointed out with his last tweet in this storm (https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/481554165454209027 https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/481554165454209027), "Unbundle X from Y, but then use the liberation of X as leverage to do amazing new things with X." This thought framework has me convinced that watch-like wearables have a place, but I think the fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the shirtsleeve" as OP points out is a major ding: form is as important as function for such a jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the Apple Watch will get /everyone/ on board.
  • adnrw 12y ago
    > The fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the shirtsleeve" as OP points out is a major ding: form is as important as function for such a jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the Apple Watch will get /everyone/ on board. I agree. I think they will sell a boatload of the first generation, but two or three years down the track it will get its equivalent of the iPod-on-Windows or App-store-for-iPhone moment and take off. Everything will suddenly click and everyone will want one.
• mmxiii 12y ago
  I understand how a watch guy would have strong feelings about the emotions and ideas behind a watch. But I think he is missing the greater context. When an object has a permanence in utility and form, we have a certain relationship with it. This is the kind of emotion and relationship we have with watches. But the world changes, and very soon it will be competing against a different type of relationship. Our relationship with wearables may be skewed more to utility than heirloom. But that's OK because wearables represent the mesh of software with hardware, and software gives the ability to evolve. We will no longer have the singular relationship with one watch, but a broad relationship with a series of evolving wearables that slowly become more and more essential to our lives. So no, we won't have the same emotions and same relationship with wearables as we did with watches. But that's just where the universe will be going.
• conradfr 12y ago
  My only question with those watches is the screen, i.e does it look like one ? I have a friend with a LG watch and the back light is annoying. Years ago I thought digital photo frames were an excellent (and still relevant) idea but ultimately a failure because they looked like screens. And screens are distracting, eyes are drawn to them. I hate TVs in bars, people unconsciously watched them even if they don't care about what is broadcast and forgot they are with people.
• sanoli 12y ago
  I'll bet 5 bucks with someone here that it will flop (as in, won't become a regular product). My reasons for winning the bet: -Although it looks great, it doesn't look like a great watch, it just looks like a beautiful Apple product. The thing is, on this specific product, as opposed to all their other products, Apple is competing with an established design lineage that goes back for decades, and wristwatches have always been about good taste and good design, so the competition on the aesthetics front is not so easy for Apple as it was on their other products (meaning computer hardware/software makers suck tremendously in regards to design, but watchmakers are champions of it). -Extending on previous reason: it's as if Apple decided to go the eyeglass route and take on Google. Easy, because Glass is downright ugly and too geeky. So Apple makes its own beautiful glass, which is still a little geeky, and then they have to compete with Ray-Ban, Gucci, Prada, wathever. -Short battery life sucks for a wristwatch. -People already have the functionality on the iPhone, and the iPhone is already pretty portable. -Short battery life sucks a lot for a wristwatch, come to think of it. edit: formatting.
  • sanoli 12y ago
    Forgot to add: check out Apple's 80s clothing line. Probably looked way better than clothes from Microsoft.
  • cubicle67 12y ago
    You might want to define "flop" and specify a timeframe if you're offering a bet like this Some suggestions: * will sell less than x units in the y months after it becomes available * is discontinued within y months * will not make it to version n * will bring in less than $x revenue/profit in [timeframe] * will lose its link at the top of the apple website within y months It's also hard to tell what Apple's internal expectations are. They may expect to only sell 100, or they may be expecting to sell 100 million. My guess is it's a "feeler" product to guage demand while they work on v2
  • bobbles 12y ago
    Is apple trying to sell this to people that already wear a watch? Tim cook knows that younger generations dont care about wearing a watch because the time is on their phone. They want a product that convinces people that have NEVER worn a watch that they want something on their wrist... I think this is going to be explosively successful. Of course the sheer fact that you will actually be able to BUY an apple watch will be great for its success (see: every android watch perpetually being unavailable when they launch)
• Ar-Curunir 12y ago
  This article is just falling over itself to praeise the Apple Watch. The Apple Watch doesn't look particularly sleek or modern, instead it looks like someone shrunk the iPhone 3GS and put a strap on it. The author picks up random watches that do not look nice as a comparision for the Apple Watch, but ignores watches in roughly the same price range that do look better? For instance, look at [1] or [2], both are from Tissot, both look elegant and classy, and both are the same price as the Apple Watch. The article obssesses over Apple's decision making regarding straps, but uses really, really biased sounding words. For instance: > The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it. Anybody who visits a watch store will find watches with that sort of strap a dime a dozen. Further evidence of Apple fanboyism can be found later on in the article, when the author states that the new iPhone 6, which is not available for use yet, as "the absolute best offering in the category in both form and function". I am not implying that liking Apple products makes one a fanboy (I own and really like my MBPr), but this article isn't of any really journalistic standard, and yet has reached the top of HN.
  • tomcorrigan 12y ago
    >> The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it. >Anybody who visits a watch store will find watches with that sort of strap a dime a dozen. Re-read the bit about tech company, not watch company
  • robert_tweed 12y ago
    I for one am impressed by your categorisation of the 1957 Speedmaster and Patek 3940G as "random watches that do not look nice". You're probably not the target audience for Hodinkee. The article acknowledges some of the shortcomings of the watch, but one thing should be obvious: this author is someone that understands the little differences in quality that differentiate a $350 watch from a $35,000 one. When it comes to the points he makes about build quality, I believe him. I'm also quite impressed by what I've seen of the bracelets, especially the ultra-thin deployant. If you've ever worn a deployant strap you'll understand what a big deal that is. I do not think Apple has got everything right with this, but I'm increasingly realising they've done again what they always do well: completely ignore conventional wisdom about what makes a good product and focus on the "ownership experience". As with other new Apple products, the first gen isn't very good. By the time it hits 3rd gen, all the initial complaints will have been resolved. They just need to find a market in the meantime, which is neither the Casio owner nor the Rolex owner, but I have confidence the market exists and this will do well enough to survive and evolve.
• beloch 12y ago
  A Timex might last over a decade if you replace the battery occasionally. A mechanical watch will offer inferior time keeping accuracy but, if maintained, can operate well for centuries. A quality mechanical watch is an heirloom item, which is one reason why watch aficionados can rationalize spending thousands on a single watch. The Apple watch will be totally obsolete and incompatible with everything inside of five years. It's soldered-on and nearly impossible to replace battery will likely run out of charges in far less time than that. These are not heirloom items. They're disposable. As such, I don't expect the same kind of build quality from an Apple watch that I would from a mechanical watch. That they do offer good build quality for the money is therefore totally unexpected and rather nice. That being said, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want one of these. As a fitness tracker and GPS watch they're inferior to what's out there (chiefly because the Apple watch relies on your iPhone's GPS). I don't do workouts with a phone in my pocket. Also, so far it's unclear if the Apple watch is waterproof, and it had better be to have any use at all in this market! For almost all other applications, the effort of working with such a tiny screen and different interface outweighs the trouble of reaching into your pocket and pulling out your phone. If I want eye candy on my wrist, I'll dust off a mechanical instead of buying something that will be junk in a few years.
  • Istof 12y ago
    GPS is a battery hog, that is maybe why they decided to use the phone's battery and GPS?
  • cbr 12y ago
    I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want one of these. Triaging notifications without taking your phone out of your pocket. Who's calling me; do I need to pick up? Is this buzz an sms, calendar reminder, etc? That's what makes me want one.
    • visarga 12y ago
      Covert tactile communication / notification. Imagine a poker game.
  • 12y ago
• mladenkovacevic 12y ago
  Here's one thing I realized about the famous Apple "reality distortion field" with the release of this watch. The reality distortion doesn't start with the consumer once the product is released. It starts within Apple while the product is being developed. I mean they really believed when they were building the Apple Watch "We are building a $350 device". Wheter you love the design or hate it, it's hard to deny the effort that went into designing this device, from getting the dimensions right, to the curvature of the screen and bezel camouflage to the bracelet selection. This reality distortion field only then gets transfered to the RIGHT customer who has no problem paying $350. I still think it'll be a tough slog to get the watch through the early adopter curve and over the early majority hump simply because it has no compelling features as of yet, but that might change with a wider ecoaystem. As of right now, the main selling feature of this watch is the built in reality distortion field. With the right offer though it might have an easier time. If you got the watch for $100 extra when upgrading your iPhone anyways that might be an easier pill to swallow than paying $350 outright. Whatever the offer may be, Apple needs to find the equivalent of the carrier subsidies which propelled smartphone adoption at the end of last decade. TL'DR: What Apple realizes is that the way to sell their watch is to communicate to their customers that they want to wear the watch because they'll enjoy wearing it - no other reasons or features are needed. In fact many of the truly novel features (payment, identification, keyless entry...) will only scare away mainstream users. Just put in on their wrist first.. And show them the true functionality slowly and in stages.
  • Gracana 12y ago
    I don't really follow what you're saying. How is designing something to match its price point distorting reality?
    • mladenkovacevic 12y ago
      Because the mark-up on the actual price of producing a product is inflated due to the reality distortion field. Apple is not in the business of selling a collection of electrical conponents, silicon and labour. They are selling admission to the experience of owning an Apple product. Apple superfans won't wear this watch because of some feature that makes their lives easier somehow. The first buyers will wear it because they enjoy wearing it from a physical and psychological standpoint.
• scald 12y ago
  I think the point about Swiss makers being in trouble with the younger generation is valid. I'm 28, and have always had a great appreciation for fine watches. This is mainly because I grew up seeing my dad appreciate them, and many of the people I'd classify as successful were appreciating them. I wonder though, how many in my generation will teach their children - intentionally or not - that a reasonably successful individual owns the best smartwatch to control their Tesla and their smart home, and not a Rolex? It isn't a stretch to think Rolex could partner with someone to be that brand of smartwatches. Today, smartwatches aren't competing with classic timepieces. In 10 years, there's a real chance that they will.
  • jacquesm 12y ago
    A Rolex is a complete waste of money. For less than a very small fraction of the price of a Rolex you can get a watch that will perform just as good or possibly even better. The only reason Rolex owners have Rolexes is to show they can afford one. And they can't wait to tell you about it. Parents that teach their children that successful people buy overpriced trinkets are losing an opportunity to teach their kids the difference between 'good enough' and conspicuous consumption.
    • easytiger 12y ago
      Tell that to every girl wearing ear rings or a diamond ring or a guy wearing a necklace. People accessorize. Get over it. For less tha the price of a mid range rolex you can also buy a rubidium atomic oscillator. I'm failing to see your point?
      • jacquesm 12y ago
        The point is, to the point of being pointless: that you can buy stuff because it has utility or that you can buy stuff for signalling purposes. A Rolex is signalling stuff masquerading as utility stuff. The utility value of a Rolex is approximately $50 (the price of a half-decent watch that will tell the time accurately for many years to come, assuming your phone doesn't already do that for you). The rest is signalling value (and in the case of a gold one some intrinsic value). I'm perfectly ok with you not seeing my point. In the end the guy with the jeans and the t-shirt is quite possibly a lot wealthier than the guy with the Ferrari and the Rolex. (Especially when they're not bought with cash.)
• balloot 12y ago
  My issue with the watch is the crown control. It just feels lazy to me to take a control mechanism made 100+ years ago for winding mechanical watches off your wrist, and repurpose it for digital control of a watch on your wrist. Is it possible that the best possible UX solution for winding a mechanical watch and controlling a digital OS is exactly the same? Perhaps. But that seems improbable to me. It's hard to know until the thing is out in the wild, but I would expect a lot of people fiddling awkwardly with the top half of that tiny little dial as the bottom of the dial digs into their wrist. Doesn't seem terribly fun. Or to look at it differently, both of Apple's other consumer hits (iPod, iPhone) introduced a navigation interface that was completely novel and way better than anything else on the market (iPhone => finger navigated multi-touch screen, iPod => rotary dial). A crown on a watch is definitely not novel, and I'm thoroughly skeptical it will be way better than its competition. That being said, it's unlikely that this thing bombs. But as a test of innovation post-Steve, I'm just not seeing it. And over time, the luster of Apple will fade if there's no innovation.
  • MBCook 12y ago
    The control mechanism that's lasted over 100 years obviously works well. We are not too far into the touchscreen era, and when the thing is only 1 inch on each side the touchscreen isn't going to work especially well. Someone made a mockup a week or two ago that used the ring around normal watch face as an input mechanism. I actually thought that was kind of a neat idea. I'd kind of like to see one of the Android watchmakers give it a try. But it was more of a 'watch with some interaction' (like the old Timex Datalink) than a 'smartwatch'.
    • balloot 12y ago
      Crown mechanisms worked well for a completely different purpose. They are the easiest way to set and wind a watch that is not on your wrist. Totally different use case than controlling the watch's screen while you're wearing it!
    • eevilspock 12y ago
      Apple could easily do that for a round "Apple Watch 2". It's the same as the digital crown in function, just in a different place. The just have to make the bezel touch sensitive. The feel of using it would be very reminiscent of the iPod scroll wheel.
• neonkiwi 12y ago
  My thought after reading this—a great product would be an actual analog watch (quartz or mechanical) with the same styling and finishes that the Apple Watch has, with a much thinner case, that customers would use with Apple's bands. Take advantage of the immense design effort that went into the watch, but set aside the smart watch idea. I'd buy that watch today for the same price as the Apple Watch.
  • bobbles 12y ago
    I wouldnt be surprised if deal extreme has a 'watch body' that will be compatible with apple watch bands before the apple watch even hits the market
• totalrobe 12y ago
  Was the battery life announced? Cannot find a reference anywhere which makes me wonder...
  • MBCook 12y ago
    No, but the keynote made a mention of how easy it is to charge every night. Rumor is that it's about a day and Apple is trying to optimize it before release.
    • totalrobe 12y ago
      Gotcha, did not see it due to technical issues. Apple brags about battery life in every other product they release. IMO reviewers need to hold off until real life battery life is released.
• hyp0 12y ago
  A specific-purpose accessory can't be as big or as revolutionary as Apple ][e, Mac, iPhone or iPad. More like apple TV, iPod, console, kindle. Still scope for a multi-billion dollar market though. Just the kind of thing Sony might have made in its heyday, and Apple can dramatically improve it iteratively, limited only by the wrist-space form-factor. Replace your wallet (payments, ID, memberships), car keys, TV remote; monitor blood sugar, home-automation etc.
• hnriot 12y ago
  What about privacy? There's something reassuring about putting an iPhone into one's pocket. Messages showing up for anyone to see doesn't really appeal to me. I ran this page through NLTK's Sentiment Analysis and the the score is NEGATIVE 0.8, Stanford's never finished!
• marincounty 12y ago
  I think I was too initally hard on the watch, or expected too much? After they thin it out it might just get younger people wearing watches again?
• LeicaLatte 12y ago
  Nice photos of the watch in there
• sebastianavina 12y ago
  I'm still not sure what kind of information I want to be delivered via my watch...
• smrtinsert 12y ago
  This is the best ad ever for a Patek Philippe 3940G.
• fla 12y ago
  This is not a watch, it's a communication accessory's accessory.
• lazylizard 12y ago
  now we just need a dumb seiko 5 or casio g-shock with a dim LED to do 'less intrusive' notifications..
• _pmf_ 12y ago
  The digital crown will snap off, and people will be pissed.
• lispm 12y ago
  A watch which does need charging once a day with a special charger, which is not very robust, very clunky, with a UI for kids for 350+? No way. Apple targets the fashion market. Material might be great, but the form factor is horrible: big, clunky, ... Basically Apple tries to sell a very tiny computer add-on in a jewelry case. Currently I'm only using watches for training a Garmin 310xt and now most of the time a Suunto Ambit2 S. The latter is the more modern and it does the training stuff very well. I can swim with it, it has GPS and it has very good heart rate monitoring functionality (it gets the oxygen consumption and energy using heart rate variability data). For Apple I would hope that the new Apple Watch is the equivalent of the first iPhone, which also wasn't very good on the hardware level (slow, limited connectivity, ...).
  • 72deluxe 12y ago
    "UI for kids" Haha that's made my day thanks. Very witty.
  • hoggle 12y ago
    I don't know how accurate Apple's method for monitoring the heart rate is but it's definitely cool that I don't need to use a chest strap. That said knowing about my oxygen consumption and heart rate variability during swimming exercises is pretty amazing, I highly doubt the optical Apple sensor would work in that environment. So that Suunto Ambit2 looks neat indeed, thanks for sharing.
    • lispm 12y ago
      Optical sensors currently don't give that data. So far only chest straps deliver that data.
      • tomkinstinch 12y ago
        Most oximetry is performed optically, actually[1], and it is the technology Apple is drawing from to determine heart rate[2]. It's not difficult to build an oximeter[3], though reliable and calibrated O2 sat[4] numbers may be more challenging to derive from a device in the form factor of a consumer watch. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_oximetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_oximetry 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoplethysmogram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoplethysmogram 3. http://www.swharden.com/blog/2013-04-14-simple-diy-ecg-pulse-oximeter-version-2/ http://www.swharden.com/blog/2013-04-14-simple-diy-ecg-pulse... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_saturation_(medicine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_saturation_(medicine)
• LeicaLatte 12y ago
  Looks like this is not a fight just between Apple and Android. So many players, so much history, so much subjectivity that... Apple and Android are sure to win! :) But seriously, only these two have the tech. We never wanted those old watches these smart watches are being compared with. And we sure as hell are not going to buy them now! None of these so called watch makers make phones. Or tablets. Touch screens. Voice recognition. They are clueless about ecosystems. Watch companies have managed to have a strap ecosystem, that's all. That's laughable and lazy for a "big" business. I continue to believe watch incumbents are obsolete. If anything, this is their last chance to jump onto the bandwagon now that tech companies have put our interests back into watches.
  • kitsune_ 12y ago
    I think you underestimate watch makers. The watch industry already survived the 'quartz crisis' back in the late 70s and early 80s. Companies like the Swatch Group own semiconductor subsidiaries specialized in ultra-low power integrated circuits, micro controllers, lcd displays, sensors, tablets and so on. They also own battery manufacturers and have years of know how in this field.
    • LeicaLatte 12y ago
      Thanks I didn't know this
• maigret 12y ago
  One thing the author is missing: the prices begin at 350$. The milanaise strap he shows might be worth as much alone. For 350$ you probably get the cheap sport watch, while the beautiful ones might cost a good 1000. Which makes the wealth argument less strong. But let's see how this comes out.
  • probably_wrong 12y ago
    Well, keep in mind the author mentions that he saved and bought an Ikepod Hourglass, which according to this link[1] costs $28,500. He also posits (rhetorically) that a 25-years-old would typically want an Omega watch, which typically starts at $2500. His article makes some great points about the watch itself, as he clearly knows what he's talking about. But I would take his non-strictly-watch-related opinions with a bit of skepticism, as I don't think he's playing in the same league as the rest of us. [1] http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-by-marc-newson-quite-possibly-the-coole.html http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-...
    • maigret 12y ago
      Right. I know the Hodinkee blog well actually, and I agree with you. I was just pinning on the first part of the article, where he compares the Apple Watch with sub-350$ watches.
• minusSeven 12y ago
  meh, Why are all this kind of watch reviews focusing on the looks rather than what you can do with it. Dunno I would be far more interested in what you can do with how you want to use it rather than how incredible wonderful it looks.
• sfjailbird 12y ago
  Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly? A big clunky square box with a rubber strap. Some dim electronic display on top. That's what it looks like at a distance. Honestly it looks like something Samsung or Sony might turn out. Most of the guesswork 'prototypes' were far more compelling: https://www.google.com/search?q=iwatch+prototype&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=iwatch+prototype&tbm=isch Even the Samsung offering looks better - we can finally do curved displays, and is there a better place to put them than in a wristwatch? http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/gears/ http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/gears/
  • broolstoryco 12y ago
    > Honestly it looks like something Samsung or Sony might turn out. As does the iPhone 6 edit: and this is coming from quite the apple fanboy
  • on_and_off 12y ago
    I have played with a prototype of the new samsung watch. I think it already gave a good idea of where they wanted to go. Considering their phone designs, it is not bad, but not a work of art either. Samsung watches are plasticky things. I have conflicted thoughts on Apple Watch. On one hand, I can see that Apple has put a LOT of thought on its appearance (as with most of their products) and on the little details. On the other hand, I don't think the final design look good. I would need to try it first hand to confirm it but my first impression is that I don't want that big rectangular clunky thing on my hand. And a circular watchface in a rectangular frame with a lot of whitespace (well blackspace actually) ? I just can't get over it. If I had to guess what Apple Watch would look like before its reveal, I would have bet on something very similar to the Moto360.
    • chucknelson 12y ago
      I agree with the initial impression of a "big rectangular clunky thing", but thankfully the smaller version of the Apple Watch looks more reasonable. That along with the what-seem-like-great strap choices might make it a bit more palatable than the other watches out right now (Samsung, LG, etc.). The Moto360 is initially easier to accept due to its familiar "normal" watch appearance, but I think the software and "experience" on devices like the Apple Watch will prevail.
• Shivetya 12y ago
  While I have only a few watches I certainly am not on the level of a collector nor do I own any beyond the five hundred range. I appreciate a good watch but I appreciate good design and great function as well and I just don't see it here. I do not need a slaved device. To me that is a redundant device. If anything I would love a wrist mounted phone and would willingly give up much of the smart phone functionality I have now. Simple text messages, voice mail, gps, and similar would be needed. Full on email, taking pictures, and browsing not so. Besides being boring, ugly, whatever, the worst offense here is that you cannot buy it. Apple should go back to announcing products you can buy today, not next year. Slaved device, I guess we should be thankful it isn't cable attached
• tlrobinson 12y ago
  "and in fact, to my left is an Ikepod Hourglass (designed by Marc Newson) that I wanted from the minute I laid eyes on it. I saved up and bought it because it's a perfect object, and even those people who don't care about time, or design, agree that it's beautiful." By "watch guy" he means someone who dropped $28,500 on a hourglass.
  • ohitsdom 12y ago
    I cannot understand this "Watch lover" crowd. That hourglass looks ridiculous, I wouldn't buy that at a garage sale. And even with all the things he didn't "love" about the watch, he still is going to buy one (but might not daily wear). I'd say that's a win for Apple with version 1.0. That said, I am not the market for a smart watch at all. I don't wear jewelry, and my phone already does a great job of telling time and showing me messages.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• Aldo_MX 12y ago
  Dear mankind: I don't want a smartwatch to be the complement of a smartphone. I want a smartphone to be the a complement of a smartwatch... actually, a smartphone sans the phone, like an ipod touch or a tablet. My idea for a smartwatch is to have the modules that make a smartphone possible there: cellular antenna, gps, bluetooth, fitness tracking, etc. Baterry-unfriendly modules like Wi-Fi must be discarded. The use case for a smartwatch as a standalone device would be the following one: - Connect a Bluetooth headset to listen to music (extra points, if a micro sd slot is included) - Receive messages and answer to them with predefined text (ex. I'm on my watch, I'll text you later) - Receive calls and call to existing contacts/emergency numbers, a proper dialer is not required at all - Basic GPS directions to predefined locations (ex. Home/Work/Gym/School) - Fitness tracking - Wireless charging For the rest of features, and to enjoy a proper dialer, proper texting, proper navigation, etc., just connect the ipod/tablet/whatever to it via bluetooth. The killer feature: Having to carry no smartphone at all. You can use the multimedia system of the car to take advantage of the watch, the steering wheel could have a wireless charging module next to it. Another accessory could be a desktop keyboard with a wireless charging module. And at home, you could have a proper charging dock.
  • nardi 12y ago
    Man, the sense of entitlement. They can't fit all that stuff in there yet. Give it a few years, man. It's amazing what they can fit in there already.
    • Aldo_MX 12y ago
      Few years? The Chinese already have done it since many years ago, although pre-2014 models were bulky: http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/2014-New-Design-GPS-Tracker-Android_1780923094.html http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/2014-New-Design-GPS-Tr...
  • kristapsmors 12y ago
    include GPS in battery-unfriendly list
• deweller 12y ago
  The Apple Watch looks beautiful when photographed by itself. It looks absurd to me when photographed on someone's arm. In time perhaps history will prove me wrong.
• nzp 12y ago
  With the risk of sounding like an elitist prick (not the intention, and I'm really not) that photo of a Patek Phillipe and Apple Watch side by side on his wrist to me screams: This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a digital picture of a fake butterfly. A masterpiece of craftsmanship, good taste and skill, side by side with a mass market simulation of those all those things sporting a tacky, pointless image of an animal. I'm not an Apple fan but I do appreciate their mostly good taste and design. However, this watch is hideous. It's the first object they produced since their resurrection in 1997 that I instantly find ugly. Really, really ugly. If it was an aeroplane it wouldn't fly well. I wouldn't bet it will be unsuccessful though, there's a lot of people with bad taste out there.
• P3KLb82AhB 12y ago
  this watch is an add-on to a phone when people are extending their contracts (you know "extend your contract with a new iphone and you get an apple watch for free" kind of deal) to get some of android base back, other than that it's useless. I would not wear one even if it was given to me for free in every configuration possible.